New thought about Pascal's Wager

[Dmitri Martila]

[QUOTE="Joshua260, post: 68747214, member: 318224"Given that it is just as reasonable to believe that God exists as not,

1. It is not just as reasonable at all.
2. Which god?

[/QUOTE]
It is huge work of pretend, decay, poisoning of society, and self-decay. This does evil. Evil is not reliable, because it always like virus mutates (atheist in pagan Spaghetti Monster sect) and adjusts to destroy good.

No good no evil means, what there is no observer. This was observed, thus there is observer and there is good.

If there is only evil, This truth is good (because evil is not reliable). Therefore, there is good.

The evil destroys good, but there is good. Thus, there is good God.

 

[Dmitri Martila]

Brother Dmitri...
However, when you say that, "All can be proved logically," I have to disagree

YOU HAVE NO SUPPORT IN LOGIC, BRO. THEREFORE, I AM GIVING YOU THIS SUPPORT WITH HELP OF MY ORTHODOX GOD.
NOW YOU WILL WITHSTAND ATHEISM FOR SOME TIME:

It is huge work of pretend, decay, poisoning of society, and self-decay. This does evil. Evil is not reliable, because it always like virus mutates (atheist in pagan Spaghetti Monster sect) and adjusts to destroy good.

No good no evil means, what there is no observer. This was observed, thus there is observer and there is good.


If there is only evil, This truth is good (because evil is not reliable). Therefore, there is good.

The evil destroys good, but there is good. Thus, there is good God

 

[bhsmte]

YOU HAVE NO SUPPORT IN LOGIC, BRO. THEREFORE, I AM GIVING YOU THIS SUPPORT WITH HELP OF MY ORTHODOX GOD.
NOW YOU WILL WITHSTAND ATHEISM FOR SOME TIME:

It is huge work of pretend, decay, poisoning of society, and self-decay. This does evil. Evil is not reliable, because it always like virus mutates (atheist in pagan Spaghetti Monster sect) and adjusts to destroy good.

No good no evil means, what there is no observer. This was observed, thus there is observer and there is good.


If there is only evil, This truth is good (because evil is not reliable). Therefore, there is good.

The evil destroys good, but there is good. Thus, there is good God

You haven't demonstrated your own logic is sound.

In fact, you keep digging yourself a deeper hole.

 

[ecco]

ecco asked:

1. It is not just as reasonable at all.
2. Which god?

The evil destroys good, but there is good. Thus, there is good God.

Which god is the good god? Atlas, Shiva, Allah? Please try to be specific.

 

[Davian]

Lol!! No, Pascal’s Wager is not debunked or out of date!! Those who say so are either intentionally misrepresenting Pascal or clearly do not understand the argument.

The Wager needs to be taken within the context of the Pensees.

Thus, it is better stated:

Given that it is just as reasonable to believe that God exists as not, it is better to believe that God exists and be wrong than *not* to believe that God exists and be wrong.

Exactly where did you establish that believing in your particular god is "just as reasonable" to believe as not? At least I don't have to throw out virtually all of mainstream science to accommodate my beliefs. How about you?

And besides, belief is not a conscious choice.

 

[Davian]

pascals wager is fairly valid as it relates to the logic behind it.

if there were a fire that all humans would inevitably go through, you would buy fire insurance from an insurance broker of any personality, language etc.

it doesn't matter if you don't speak the language of Christ,

the fire insurance he brings is universal.

take it or leave it.

that was what he was saying,

we can choose to point out the nit picky behaviours of christians or the church, but ultimately the person holding the fire insurance is the person of value to us.

pascal knew this,

he knew that we can be wrong about alot of things, and religiouns certainly are most of the time.

Christ with his non religioun, brings a policy of life that even though you die yet shall you then live!!!

haleluliah!



and so pascals thoughts follow this same vein.

if we are wrong thats okay, the fire never existed then.

but if are right, and the fire's do exist, we have saved ourself from innumerable torments.

simply buy buying the policy that only Christ can have, and having faith that the person holding the deed of warranty is sure to his word.

There are plenty of fake and fraudulent policies out there, how are we to know yours is real? Or, if any are real? And, why do we need this policy all all? Why to I get the feeling of a protection racket going on here?

[gangster voice]

"Nice soul you've got there. Would be a shame if it were tortured forever"

[/gangster voice]

 

[createdtoworship]

I will leave it.

I can't force myself to believe in something, I don't believe to be true. I don't roll that way.

and that is your choice, against the odds.

while God may not be objectively proven, most likely chances are that something created the universe, you call it God, you call it some vibration of magnetism, or whatever, something did it.

and it is that same something that must as well be superiour in philosophy than we are,

if we can say things profound like "to think or not to think"

then the creator must too possess at least that and much more.

so you have a small corner to live in to say that you are sure there is no God, especially assuming that God is not behind every asteroid that you have never looked.

-cheers.

 

[createdtoworship]

Do you have experience in committing numerous fallacies and errors in logically speaking? But as you say, that is off-topic, and you should message me.

have I?

well there is none that hasn't.

but it's a good practice to fine tune logical analysis,

when it's all said and done, the true facts of the matter are rock solid, and account for .001 percent of what is spoken.

you really know nothing for fact, for a fact, for absolute certaintly.

as GK chesterton I believe put it,

"you do not know truth when something proves it so, but rather when everything proves it a fact, then do you know it true"

now I believe I hacked that quote.

it's not good enough to have one evidence of a thing, you need absolute universal evidence from all analysis to have a certain thing.

science when reduced to it's raw test tube analysis, it becomes very small.

99 percent of scientists can be fired, and the few that really apply the scientific method can step forward.

 

[createdtoworship]

There are plenty of fake and fraudulent policies out there, how are we to know yours is real? Or, if any are real? And, why do we need this policy all all? Why to I get the feeling of a protection racket going on here?

[gangster voice]

"Nice soul you've got there. Would be a shame if it were tortured forever"

[/gangster voice]

that is not the point of the wager,

and that would be for another thread.

the OP involves pascals wager, and as far as I know, it deals very little with his opinion on the matter.

it mainly deals with statistics,

if he is wrong, and he has rejected the policy (even a questionable one)

then is further put out, than if he simply got ripped off with an outrageous policy that makes no sense financially.

he is better off having a policy with questions, than having a singe on his shirt after being warned.

you see what I mean?

 

[createdtoworship]

Which god is the good god? Atlas, Shiva, Allah? Please try to be specific.

well the point would be to void out all those who were evil first, then the remaining God's to put in a box and question them on goodness.

no, just kidding.

but I would at least sift out the evil ones,

the Kuran does not have 2 versus on loving your enemy and forgiveness, rather it's about retaliation and revenge.

The Bible says to leave that up to him, while we ourselves love those who persecute.

see the difference?

which of the two would pass the test?

and you would have to go down the line with all of them.

 

[createdtoworship]

sometimes simply quoting a bit of the wager may be of help in finding out what motive or context Pascal was waging:


"
“Who then will condemn Christians for being unable to give rational grounds for their belief, professing as they do a religion for which they cannot give rational grounds?” For “if they did prove it they would not be keeping their word. It is by being without proof that they show they are not without sense.” Pascal then proceeds to pose the alternatives: “Either God is or he is not. But to which view shall we be inclined? Reason cannot decide this question. Infinite chaos separates.… Reason cannot make you choose either, reason cannot prove either wrong. Nonetheless, one must choose. Which will you choose then?” he asks. “Let us weigh up the gain and the loss involved in calling heads that God exists. Let us assess the two cases; if you win you win everything, if you lose you lose nothing. Do not hesitate then; wager that he does exist.” There is eternal life and happiness to gain if God exists and nothing at all to lose if there is no God. So,” asks Pascal, “what have you to lose?” Wager on God.

From the standpoint of reason, faith in God is a bet in which the purely rational odds are about even (No. 144), but in which the existential dice are highly loaded in favor of faith. There are no purely rational tests for religious truth. Even “contradiction is a poor indication of truth. Many things that are certain are contradicted. Many that are false pass without contradiction.” Hence, “contradiction is no more an indication of falsehood than lack of it is an indication of truth” (No. 177 [384] ).4 Truth is tested in the heart not the mind, and the criteria are existential rather than rational."



3 Pascal, “Wager” in Pensées, trans. A. J. Krailsheimer (Penguin Books, 1966).

4 Pascal, “Wager.”

--------------------------

above clip from-
Geisler, N. L. (1976). Christian apologetics. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House.
Page . Exported from Logos Bible Software, 6:55 PM June 21, 2014.

 

[bhsmte]

and that is your choice, against the odds.

while God may not be objectively proven, most likely chances are that something created the universe, you call it God, you call it some vibration of magnetism, or whatever, something did it.

and it is that same something that must as well be superiour in philosophy than we are,

if we can say things profound like "to think or not to think"

then the creator must too possess at least that and much more.

so you have a small corner to live in to say that you are sure there is no God, especially assuming that God is not behind every asteroid that you have never looked.

-cheers.

Not really a choice. I can't force myself to believe something I don't believe is true. Just as you couldn't force yourself and make the choice to not believe in the God you believe in.

What odds are you referring to exactly?

 

[Davian]

have I?

well there is none that hasn't.

but it's a good practice to fine tune logical analysis,

when it's all said and done, the true facts of the matter are rock solid, and account for .001 percent of what is spoken.

you really know nothing for fact, for a fact, for absolute certaintly.

as GK chesterton I believe put it,

"you do not know truth when something proves it so, but rather when everything proves it a fact, then do you know it true"

now I believe I hacked that quote.

it's not good enough to have one evidence of a thing, you need absolute universal evidence from all analysis to have a certain thing.

science when reduced to it's raw test tube analysis, it becomes very small.

99 percent of scientists can be fired, and the few that really apply the scientific method can step forward.

I am not looking for absolute certainty. I would like something, testable, falsifiable, to show that gods are not simply characters in books. Then we can look as specific gods.

 

[Davian]

that is not the point of the wager,

and that would be for another thread.

the OP involves pascals wager, and as far as I know, it deals very little with his opinion on the matter.

it mainly deals with statistics,

if he is wrong, and he has rejected the policy (even a questionable one)

then is further put out, than if he simply got ripped off with an outrageous policy that makes no sense financially.

he is better off having a policy with questions, than having a singe on his shirt after being warned.

you see what I mean?

No. The policy you are selling is lumped in with the fakes until proven otherwise.

 

[Joshua260]

[QUOTE="Joshua260, post: 68747214, member: 318224"Given that it is just as reasonable to believe that God exists as not,

1. It is not just as reasonable at all.
2. Which god?

[/QUOTE]
As I explained, one needs to take the wager within the context of Pascal's other arguments addressed within the Pensees. I don't think even Pascal would concur with his wager if presented as uninformed atheists usually do.

So, which god? Pascal makes it very clear in his Pensees that he is referring to the existence of the Christian god in his wager.

Reasonable? Pascal took great pains to cite and review much of the Christian evidences that are usually provided by apologists.

 

[Joshua260]

Exactly where did you establish that believing in your particular god is "just as reasonable" to believe as not?

Pascal cited various Christian evidences and philosophical arguments in the Pensees to support that contention.

And besides, belief is not a conscious choice.

Surely you have heard Christians explain that when we urge non-believers to “believe in Christ”, we mean to say that you should “trust in Christ”. Pascal was saying the same thing.

 

[Davian]

Pascal cited various Christian evidences and philosophical arguments in the Pensees to support that contention.

Then you should not say "just as reasonable" as if you have actually established it as such.

Surely you have heard Christians explain that when we urge non-believers to “believe in Christ”, we mean to say that you should “trust in Christ”. Pascal was saying the same thing.

That fails to address my point, while leaving an additional outstanding issue in regards to Christ.

He's Dead, Jim

• Davian
• Jul 30, 2015

 

[Dmitri Martila]

Which god is the good god? Atlas, Shiva, Allah? Please try to be specific.

The God exists. Why to be more specific?

 

[Dmitri Martila]

philosophical arguments

The arguments are not proofs. Do you agree? But they are proofs. So we have PARADOX. Solution: we call proofs "arguments", because to any sentence like "2+2=4" the demoniacal atheists say: "nonsense", "your logic fails". It is pure madness. But we know line of reason, thus, they are proofs. Here are not arguments, but proofs:

YOU HAVE NO SUPPORT IN LOGIC, BRO. THEREFORE, I AM GIVING YOU THIS SUPPORT WITH HELP OF MY ORTHODOX GOD. NOW YOU WILL WITHSTAND ATHEISM FOR SOME TIME:

It is huge work of pretend, decay, poisoning of society, and self-decay. This does evil. Evil is not reliable, because it always like virus mutates (atheist in pagan Spaghetti Monster sect) and adjusts to destroy good.

No good no evil means, what there is no observer. This was observed, thus there is observer and there is good. If all cause is natural, then this sentence was caused supernaturally. Therefore, there are observers with freewill.

If there is only evil, This truth is good (because evil is not reliable). Therefore, there is good.

The evil destroys good, but there is good. Thus, there is good God.

 

[ecco]

1. It is not just as reasonable at all.
2. Which god?

As I explained, one needs to take the wager within the context of Pascal's other arguments addressed within the Pensees. I don't think even Pascal would concur with his wager if presented as uninformed atheists usually do.[/QUOTE]

So, let's present it as Pascal did.

The Wager uses the following logic (excerpts from Pensées, part III, §233):

1. God is, or God is not. Reason cannot decide between the two alternatives.
2. A Game is being played... where heads or tails will turn up.
3. You must wager (it is not optional).
4. Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing.
5. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is. (...) There is here an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain, a chance of gain against a finite number of chances of loss, and what you stake is finite. And so our proposition is of infinite force, when there is the finite to stake in a game where there are equal risks of gain and of loss, and the infinite to gain.
6. But some cannot believe. They should then 'at least learn your inability to believe...' and 'Endeavour then to convince' themselves.

• Number one is false. Reason can and does decide between the two alternatives.
• Number four is false. If you wager that god is, and the reality is that god is not, then you have wasted your life believing an omni all goddidit and never have the opportunity to truly appreciate the beauty of nature.
• Number six confirms that number one is false. What, beside reason, would make someone not believe?

So, which god? Pascal makes it very clear in his Pensees that he is referring to the existence of the Christian god in his wager.

But the wager assumes that the christian god is the only god. There is a greater probability that, if there is a god, it is not the christian god. In which case the other god may well look at a devout christian less favorably than he would an atheist.